iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagon1...

Thoughts?

(doesn't play here)

Apologies - you'll need a flash player for .swf files.

Let me see if I can embed it into a page somewhere...

Here we go:

www.hsmx.com/random/conspir...

ta

[...]
pisspoor theories. i've seen film of large engine parts scraped off on the trees (broken) further away than his nice neat close-in post-cleanup shots. the reason airtrafficcontrol would have thought it was military is that civil pilots are flying much much weaker civil planes and have to sit waaaaaaaayyyy inside safety zones to avoid shortening the life of the plane and increasing costs -- but the planes can actually be chucked around very hard. (there was an airshow a few years back with a young pilot showing off a new civil aircraft. he pitched it from hard climb to flat really quickly, every experienced pilot went "shit", and the plane disintegrated about half a mile later -- the wings literally fell off. so yes, the more stupid the pilot, the more likely it would "stunt")

also, there are documented scorch marks further back than the walls.

also, the pilot got very unlucky and managed to hit the ONLY part of the pentagon that had had its structure uprated vs missile attacks. the external walls and windows are essentially armour, and the innards are very strong independent cells. if he'd hit anywhere else, the engineers reckon he'd have wiped out half the pentagon instead of punching a hole in it.

and you'll note neither of the other planes neatly left their wings on the outside of the building -- they went in, and it is actually the wings which explode since they are the primary fuel tanks.

basically: save yourself 5 mins of badlythoughtout melodrama tedium by shouting "too many americans are gullible conspiracy nuts" and doing something else

errr... sorry if that sounded harsh grim...

That's really interesting.

If the plane did hit the pentagon at that angle, then the left hand wing would certainly have either bounced along the outside of the building, or at the very least made much more of a spread impact. That much is obvious from all the other footage I have seen. Not forgetting the fact that the size of the splat on the Pentagon was nowhere near as big the splat that the planes at the WTC made. And there was no evidence of a fireball anywhere approaching the size of the WTC ones. That melted a fucking great skyscraper until it fell over.

The Pentagon one didn't even damage a table 2 floors above the impact hole. Or the wallpaper. The fireball on impact was teeny.

Far be it from me to make a sweeping statement, but the damage in that impact always looked really out of proportion to that of the WTC, for the same sort of plane, and a reasonable parity of building design. Both are reinforced concrete. It always seemed to me that they made very little of the Pentagon crash by comparison. Although I was in Italy at the time (and so most of the commentary was right over my head), nearly ALL of the footage completely ignored the Pentagon. As it is so important, you would have thought that they would have been more of it available.

And I have very little experience of military weapons, but all the footage of missiles hitting buildings I have seen on news footage looks remarkably similar to that of the Pentagon. Especially with the lack of damage on the front face of the building. If the argument that the Pentagon walls are so strong (hence the lack of external damage) how come three of these walls were penetrated by the plane fuselage, then?

Very, very interesting. Compelling evidence.

I disagree with you Salti. Fuck scorch marks, how the fuck are all the windows not smashed? Where did the wings hit?

And bashing Grim for it is out of order. He didn't proclaim any truth in it at all, merely asked for thoughts.

From my experience and knowledge of Aviation and Engineering in general, no, big planes cannot do the sort of manoeuvres that you suggest are feasible. The forces and momentum are simply too big, particularly with a fully loaded and fuelled plane. The amount that the life of the plane is affected is in the order of 10% caution rather than anything else. Planes simply DO NOT have the margin of safety that being able to be that manoeuvrable would suggest.

The main site has info on standard transponder procedures that were completely ignored in this instance that is interesting. Read that.

no, there's no parity of building design. that was stage 1 of the longstanding project to turn the pentagon into a missile-hardened building. it literally is armour and independent toughened cells.

err i didn't bash grim. i bashed the video.

Like I said, if it's so tough, how the fuck did it manage to get through 3 layers of it?

And I'd be asking for my money back if a poxy airliner made of aluminium and no structural strength in that direction punched a hole that deep into it. A proper missile should by rights have gone all the way through.

and your understanding of avionics is off. quite off. civil craft sit within about 10% of capacity normally, not 90%. e.g. wingtips on jumbos are required during regular maintenance to be able to deviate 10ft up and down without any measurable stress. have a look at some of the paths traced out by the surviving planes during the process of discovering what was causing the 767s to intermittently roll and smash into the ground. awesome. i've done similar in aerobatic planes and the thought of something that big doing the same is hackle-raising. as an indication, in one of them all the aircrew were hospitalised with broken backs etc by being thrown into the ceiling then the floor and then the walls.

dad and most of his friends are pilots and mum's an exstewardess and we hung out with air traffic controllers at barbecues and things. so i'm not an expert but i've heard the insider views.

[oh we're back- thanks cal!]

i'm off down the pub and getting bored with this, but you are making HUGE assumptions re plane strength. what on earth makes you think they have no strength fore and aft? you got any idea how many tons of electronics and aerials is sitting in the nosecone? let alone the cockpit. then think about the tons of salty water marked "passengers". then think about the tons of shear stress caused by normal flight through turbulence, which has to be handled without damage and for many years.

etcetcetc

seen that photo of the jet whose skin failed in flight and it landed a couple of hours later with the top torn off between the cockpit to back about 20 feet, from the top down to the baggage department. the thing was still fully airworthy, could have taken off again.

i think you might be confusing the thinness of the skin with the overall structure?

whatever. the beer's a-calling

They DO do 10ft wing deflection checks, but have you any idea how much force is required to deflect that wing 10ft by aerodynamic loadings? By how much force you would have to get the wings to exert to shift 100 tons of plane that is moving at 3-400 mph?

I'm not saying necessarily that the plane isn't strong enough to do mad turns and the like, merely that it's rate of response is far too low. The inherent inertia in the system of a 100 Tone plane (momentum = 0.5 x mass x velocity ^2) is, not to put too fine a point on it, FUCKING enormous. The plane, when asked to perform a turn of such severity, would either break up, or more likely, fail to respond. It simply would not be able to generate the aerodynamic forces required to turn so much weight and momentum and would side slip or produce a much larger turn but with an innefficient angle of attack. Exactly the same as a car spinning out. It doesn't matter how strong a plane is if it doesn't have the aerodynamic wing area to generate the forces required to produce the manoeuvre.

As for your 90% capacity statement, that is incorrect. NO aircraft (or car, for that matter has) a 10 x safety factor. Whomever told you that is incorrect or badly informed. Also, in my experience, Pilots aren't any more reliable sources of information of this kind than racing drivers are for their vehicles. Design factors are just not part of their required knowledge. I deal regularly with ex-military fighter test pilots (Tornados, Bucaneers and the like) and even they knew very little of the numbers. They were party to a huge quantity of technical knowledge over a standard airline pilot. These pilots are told how to operate the plane within designed limits, they won't be told what the plane will do, as it is entirely against the interests ofthe airframe manufacturer, never mind the litigation that they could open themselves up to by stating such a claim.

I can't find a website with a g-limit for the 757 that I would trust, but I do know that they have a software imposed g-limiter on them, and the plane will simply refuse to turn harder than that. However, for reference, you would only need about 2G at absolute most to throw a non-restrained person about hard enough to break something. That isn't enough to do any hairy arsed turns, really. Big planes do NOT turn fast. The p,ane you did your aerobatics in would have weighed about 5-600kg fully laden with you, pilot and fuel. The 757 weighs about 200 times that. Factor the ability down, and it isn't linear. It just can't behave like a nimble plane.

Structure:

I know a shit load about the fundamentals of crash structures. I know an awful lot about the materials and structural styles used in planes. They are simply NOT designed to penetrate. All the parts of a plane are designed to take load in a specific way - ie from the wings to hold themselves up, and from each other to hold themselves together.

I am not using assumptions.

The skin of an aircraft is, for the large part only structural in a minor capacity. The frame takes the energy. Planes do NOT have enough fore/aft strength to crash through 3 layers of (by your assertion) 'missile proof' concrete. They're only bloody aluminium, for christ sake! Also, the direction of the forces are completely at odds with the usual loads in service (ie bending loads along the fuselage length). It is the equivalent of expecting a car to go through a wall roof first. They don't. Even if they drop onto their roof from 10 ft, they squash flat. They aren't designed to take load in that direction, and in crash structure terms, steel is stronger (ie more penetratong and less energy absorbent and crushable) than aluminium.

The mass of electronics, aerials, hydraulic piping and people that you refer to (all entirely crushable structures and entities) are no proof of anything. Mass has very little relation to strength unless structured correctly. Mass and poor structure would have made an outward impact. Strength requires the punching impact that we saw. I'm not sure that momentum alone should be possible to overcome three 'missile proof walls'.

Either the walls are not as strong as stated, or something else is afoot.

Also, what about the lack of fire damage?

And the 'huge stresses' that you mention is a misnomer. Aircraft aren't designed around huge loads at all. They are designed around loads (sometimes large, admittedly) that are applied at frequent on/off applications. By far the biggest cause of failures in aircraft are due to fatigue rather than overloading.

(interesting that as soon as we started discussing conspiracy theories, the site crashed to fuck)

:)

Oh, and while I am hogging the posting, it is worth mentioning that the majority of the generation of "safety factors" in aviation is done by limiting operating parameters of the aircraft, NOT by adding extraneous structural material.

If it ain't strong enough to do a 4g turn, they just say "You must dictate that this aircraft will not be used in a situation where it will exceed a 3.5g turn", for example. They do not say "make it stronger", as the argument of 'fit for purpose' is used as a justification, and is generally accepted by the CAA and FAA as long as it is from a certified and approved design organisation.

I think both things...
I think: Where the fuck is the rest of that aeroplane?
I also think: I don't know where the rest of the plane is because I'm not a crash site analyst.

And I love the way the site crashed when we started discussing it. PH34R US, BUSH! FOR WE SPREAD THE WORD OF TRUTH!

I'd also like to make it clear that I didn't feel bashed in any way, but thanks for caring, Brockles my love.

=]

Fuck off, you goateed cunt.

:)

I'll have you know that my goatee is magic, but that's something for another thread.

If the wings went into the building (like they did in the towers), then surely there wouldn't be a neat circular hole?

But what would the US have to gain by covering up, say, a missile attack?

They got their asses truely whipped that day, but who cares if it was a missile or a airliner?

Dunno. I never said I agreed with either side. The evidence for the theory interested me. I looked at a load of other stuff too, and there are a lot of fucking fruit loops out there, but some of it is based on reasonably sound engineering practice.

The Pentagon's own footage of the impact certainly doesn't have a 757 sized lump hitting the side of it, anyway. And the missing frames versus fast projectile debate I saw was well presented and theoretically sound.

I'm with you, Salty. That Brock talks a right load of shite.

Ahh, this swf is old as the hills and has been proved a total hoax years ago... sorry... ;)

There are tonnes of photos where parts of the plane can be cleary seen. Google -> Images ;)

sure rossh, but who took the photos?

Where is this proof of it being a 'Total Hoax'?

It isn't a hoax, regardless of it's accuracy. All of the pictures are genuine and are available in exactly the same form in many other places. You could argue that it was very skewed in it's presentation, but hardly any of these sort of things are presented completely without bias.

You can take conflicting eye witness accounts of almost any event and present only the ones that agree with your personal point of view. I'm sure there is an eye witness somewhere that reckons only one plane hit the WTC, but that ain't true is it? It doesn't make it a hoax though, just erroneous.

and on the subject of erroneousness, brock is the undisputed master! ALL witnesses agree and so do people who weren't even there or even know him!

me, i'm more concerned that the FBI trojan running on iamcal's server is buggy

The Pentagon Ablaze on a US$20 Bill! AND The Twin Towers!

Conspiricy

FACT!

lol

www.libertythink.com/totali...

"I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers."

"this ... is like being bukakked with stupid."

apparently students at one of the dutch universities are going to investigate the "truth behind 911"

they get 2 weeks to do it ...

in dutch so probably not much good to anyone else:
www.nu.nl/news/791862/10/rs...

Not even the Dutch.

www.revver.com/view.php?id=...

the more observant may notice the wings bounce off and flutter to the ground.
also, THERE WAS ONLY EVER *ONE* WORLD-TRADE CENTER TOWER!!!!

but: the best footage i have EVER seen of the wtc collapse.
really: worth a watch.

the radio reports coming over in the background towards the end (and the reporting crew packing up and fleeing earlier) add an oddly visceral edge to it, linking stuff you're used to hearing all polished and shiny on the radio/tv to the hideous fact of the reality it's reporting. in realtime.

and the surreal slowness and energy of the dust clouds' billowing (and billowing and billowing and billowing...) with the conversation and radio reports chattering away thru the slowmo confirming it's actually realtime not speed-modified, after the startlingly fast collapse of the near tower (something i've not seen un-edited before) is another freaky experience.

(safe for work and no explicit violence)

but: the best footage i have EVER seen of the wtc collapse.
really: worth a watch.

Link?

just above it, the revver bit

That glazing is pretty special. A fucking building's falling down across road and you can't hear a thing.

I also never really appreciated the scale of it (physically). Surreal indeed.

just above it, the revver bit

What, the Dutch one? Didn't seem overly special to me.

just below THAT one. the revver bit.

Oh, that was rubbish. And boring. Some crap pop song in the background, the stupid tart making stupid remarks, the appalling camera technique, no edited highlights, no slo-mo of the best bits. If it was a DVD, I wouldn't buy it.